By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Deveopers talk about used games countermeasure.

Ail on 06 August 2008
Gnizmo said:
Ail said:

Like some said the real solution here is digital distribution at a discount.

Seeing how those games can't be resold used it would make a lot of sense.

Something like having PC games at retail for 50$ and 40$ if you download it online would speed up the adoption rate of digital distribution too ( and without retail getting their share and no resell of the game publishers would actually probably make more profit on the 40$ digital download than on the 50$ physical media).

Make those physical copies that can be resold more expensives so that those of us that don't plan to resell it can buy a cheaper copy :P

 That will annoy the retailers and get your product put in limited quantity on shelves in bad places. Retailers get a little annoyed when you try and cut the retail channel out of your business model.

@Garcian

 As I recall in those instances the company is forced to offer you a refund directly within thirty days of purchase. Most EULAs are unenforced because they are not technically legal and thus can't really be enforced. Some if them stay with-in the limits they are allowed but a whole lot go over-board and could actually cause a huge problem for the company should they be tested. This is all a bit of a fuzzy memory for me though as I haven't looked into the legalities of EULAs since my EQ days.

 

That's exactly what the music industry is doing though.......

Songs are cheaper on itunes than they are if you buy a CD...

Besides some companies right now have the power to push on retailers if they want ( Nintendo products are selling so much these days I doubt any retailer could seriously consider boycotting them if they changed their policy..).

A company like Sony could push on some retailers ( Best Buy, Circuit City) too thanks to it's electronics business ( do a decent job displaying my gaming product or you will get very limited deals on my TVs.)

 

Besides Gamestop is already displaying new games in limited quantity and doing everything they can to push their used games so it's not like retailer are playing nice either.. ( what is gamestop doing if not trying to cut the publishers out of the loop by focusing on used games sales ?)

I agree a small publisher would have trouble to do that but if any of the big 3 console makers did, retailers would just have to learn to live with it...

 

PS : Someone mentionned an issue earlier about companies renting games. It wouldn't really be an issue. The same way blockbuster gets different version of DVDs to rent than we buy at retail, they could get a different version of the games that would allow multiples installs or play....



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

Around the Network
kn on 06 August 2008
Kenny said:
kn said:
Why don't the developers and publishers band together to lobby congress for updates to the copyright acts? Instead of stupid technology, they should be looking for general legislation that stops companies selling used games "for profit" if the developer's/publisher's license agreement states so. We as consumers are actually "licensing" the use of the intellectual property. We do not own it. The media we buy is simply a vehicle to carry it. If They simply modified their license agreements (and copyright acts supported it), Gamestop and every other used game vendor will have to stop selling used immediately. I don't see what the big deal here is and why they don't go forward with something like this. It IS intellectual property and if it is being resold for a profit (as all used games dealers are doing), it is technically theft. The company is selling other people's intellectual property for their gain. Again, I don't see the problem in forcing modification/clarification of existing legislation.

Now, that said, I would still support end users trading, using ebay, etc., as long as it was not "for profit". That would eliminate 70-80% of the second hand market. It would also not require any kind of additional DRM or other draconian measures and would allow people to take their games to a friend's house to play and so on.

They will need to bring the price down, though. I think I've bought a handful of games in my lifetime that, in my opinion, justified the $60 layout.

The problem is a little something called the First-sale doctrine, the very short version of which is that once the physical piece of media is sold to a person, the person is free to do with it as they damn well please. The copyright owner loses all right to change of ownership of that copy of the copyrighted work at sale.

 

That is precisely my point.   It would require modification of current legislation.

 

And as far as "As a consumer, why would I support screwing over a consumer" question is concerned, how is protecting resale of intellectual property doing anything other than screwing over the owner of said intellectual property?   We, as consumers, aren't FORCED to buy the games.  If they aren't available used, it doens't mean you are FORCED to buy new.  You have the right not to buy it at all.  If you do choose to buy it, at whatever price, the intellectual property owner gets his cut.  IMHO, it's as simple as that.



I hate trolls.

Systems I currently own:  360, PS3, Wii, DS Lite (2)
Systems I've owned: PS2, PS1, Dreamcast, Saturn, 3DO, Genesis, Gamecube, N64, SNES, NES, GBA, GB, C64, Amiga, Atari 2600 and 5200, Sega Game Gear, Vectrex, Intellivision, Pong.  Yes, Pong.

noname2200 on 06 August 2008
Kasz216 said:
Kenny said:
kn said:

Really makes you wonder how the courts let software companys get away with EULA's.

Which are factually illegal but are upheld just because people can't think of legal way around getting people to agree to that shit..

 

Actually, they're perfectly legal. I lost access to Westlaw, and won't regain it for another two weeks, so I can't give you the specific cases, but in essence parties can freely modify their contracts unless the terms are de facto illegal (i.e. they violate a statute, or are against the more nebulous "public policy"). So the companies are free to set conditions on their selling you a product, but any conditions that are illegal can be safely ignored.

As to the topic, I agree with those who protest. I already don't buy games with DRM, and wouldn't have bought Mass Effect had I known it was so limited: there's no way in hell I'm going to buy software that's even more restrictive. Publishers are free to use draconian "protection" if they wish: unfortunately for them, I'm equally at liberty to not give them my money anymore.



Hawkeye on 06 August 2008
Kenny said:
The inherent problem with software piracy countermeasures, I think, is that while the pirates will just find ways to strip out such cumbersome controls, the legitimate users are the ones left who have to put up with it. The end result is that they end up punishing the people who pay for the software for the actions of those who don't.

QFT

You took away my need to post :(

 



Squilliam on 06 August 2008
Mistershine said:
Million said:
Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

 

 I've alwayas found if you give them an inch they moan for more more more.


My problem is that all I can ever give is an inch...

Tease.